2017 (6) TMI 1030 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - documentation charges - terminal handling charges - bill of lading charges etc. - denial on the ground that the services are not port service - Held that - as long as the said services were availed by the exporter/appellant in the course of export of goods within the port premises and they have suffered the service tax the claim has to be entertained for sanction - It is repeatedly decided by this Tribunal that the classification of service or the category under which the provider of service paid the tax to the Government should not be the basis for rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant as long as the services have been received by them in connection with the export of goods in the port - in Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT CHENNAI (LB) the Tribunal observed that the services provided in any manner directly or indirectly by a port or other port bring such services to the fold of port services for taxation under the category of port services. Denial of refund also on the ground that the appellants did not submit proof of payment of service tax to the Government - Held that - when the appellant availed services provided by others in the port or other specified services and produced the evidence of payment of service tax to such provider the claim cannot be rejected on the ground of non- submission of proof of payment of service tax by the service provider to the Government. Refund claim - GTA service - denial on the ground of non- submission of proper invoice or proof of deposit of service tax - Held that - When the provider of service charged service tax from the appellant on transport of goods by road and evidence by way of invoice has been issued the same should be considered by the sanctioning authority - matter on remand. Refund claim - technical testing services - denial on the ground that the written agreement was not submitted by the appellant to justify such testing - Held that - The appellants exported edible product and it is mandatorily required to export the product in a container in a hygienic condition. The Board vide circular dated 11.02.2008 clarified that refund on testing services may be allowed without any copy of agreement with a buyer of goods if such testing and analysis is statutorily stipulated by domestic rules and regulations. This aspect requires re-examination by the Original Authority. In many cases the claim was denied on the general ground that the documents are not proper or conditions of notification were not fulfilled. On perusal of the detailed submissions made by the appellant it is clear that all the supporting evidences and the clarifications submitted by the appellant have not been duly taken into consideration before rejecting their claims. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claims under notification no.41/2007-ST for service tax paid on specified services availed for export of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved 9 cases with similar refund claims under notification no.41/2007-ST for service tax paid on specified services for export of goods. The notification provided exemption for taxable services received by exporters for export of goods.

2. The main issue revolved around the rejection of claims due to services like documentation charges, terminal handling charges, bill of lading charges, etc., not being considered under "Port Service." The Tribunal emphasized that as long as services were availed within the port premises in connection with the export of goods and service tax was paid, the claim should be entertained, irrespective of the classification by service providers.

3. The Tribunal referred to various decisions supporting the refund claims, highlighting that services indirectly provided by a port fall under the category of port services. The reliance on specific Tribunal decisions further strengthened the appellants' claims for refunds.

4. The lower authorities often rejected claims for lack of proof of service tax payment to the Government. However, the Tribunal clarified that if evidence of payment to service providers was provided, claims should not be denied based on non-submission of proof of payment to the Government.

5. Claims were also rejected due to issues with debit notes and lack of proper invoices for services like GTA service and technical testing services. The Tribunal emphasized that if essential details were present in debit notes, claims should not be denied. Moreover, for technical testing services, if statutory requirements mandated such testing, refunds should be allowed without a written agreement.

6. Overall, the Tribunal found that lower authorities had not duly considered all evidence and clarifications submitted by the appellants before rejecting their claims. Consequently, the orders rejecting the refund claims were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, granting appellants opportunities to provide necessary clarifications and evidence.

The judgment provided detailed analysis on each issue involved in the refund claims under notification no.41/2007-ST, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific circumstances of service availed for export of goods and ensuring that all relevant evidence and clarifications are duly evaluated before rejecting refund claims.